Marines suffer first casualties in Afghan campaign

Yes, US troop deaths are rising again, and with the rising war weariness in America, I am sure that some are going to begin criticizing the strategy. However, these are the guys who sheltered bin Laden after 911, and who gave material support to al Qaeda training bases. This is the war that we have always needed to fight.

But we do need to be careful here. No world power has ever been able to beat Afghanistan into submission, but this is also a case where our aims are not to be like the Soviets or the British, who attempted to make that nation part of their empires. Instead, we are only there to destroy an enemy. Once that mission is completed, instead of staying, we can leave, knowing that we did what we needed to do, meting out some payback that sorely needed to be meted out. The message is crystal clear - Screw with the USA and you WILL be screwed.

Please pray for those who are spilling their blood, and who will spill their blood in the future. And while you are at it, also say a prayer for the families of those who have lost their lives in Iraq. Our soldiers are one of America's most precious resources. They don't ask for anything other than the privilege of serving their country. Whether you believe that any war is right or wrong, those who fight those wars deserve respect and support from those on both sides of the fence.

Article is here.

Thank God they're giving their lives for the US dominated illegal drug trade. Afghanistan will serve as a terrific source of poppy and heroin for years to come, thereby providing a safe, reliable revenue stream for the US government.

Liz Peeps said:

Thank God they're giving their lives for the US dominated illegal drug trade. Afghanistan will serve as a terrific source of poppy and heroin for years to come, thereby providing a safe, reliable revenue stream for the US government.

Click to expand...

Look, these are the guys who helped al Qaeda smash planes into the WTC. They need to be wiped out.

A little Semper Fi upside the Talibans head is about time.

.. Yearrrrrrp!

danarhea said:

Look, these are the guys who helped al Qaeda smash planes into the WTC. They need to be wiped out.

Click to expand...

Actually they aren't, they just helped them hide which is why we invaded Afghanistan so we could get to Al-Qaeda. The Taliban were not in the planning of 9/11.

Very sad though to hear about the Marine Casualties.

I have a feeling the US and Pakis are cooperating to squeeze the Taliban in a pincers on either side of the mountain border. At least this administration has a strategy and is not just throwing troops into killzones for political gain.

danarhea said:

Look, these are the guys who helped al Qaeda smash planes into the WTC. They need to be wiped out.

Click to expand...

Not really. Mullah Omar was actually opposed to the attacks and disliked some of Al Qaeda's more interventionist activities. I think removal of them could have been justified on the basis of their domestic repression alone, but I don't imagine that they would have proactively attacked U.S. targets.

I was also disappointed to hear about the soldier who wandered away without permission and got captured; it goes to show that you should stick together, obviously.

Liz Peeps said:

Thank God they're giving their lives for the US dominated illegal drug trade. Afghanistan will serve as a terrific source of poppy and heroin for years to come, thereby providing a safe, reliable revenue stream for the US government.

Click to expand...

They are "giving thier lives" so people like you can bloviate about utter nonsense to try and pass off your couch sitting pseudo-intellectualism as something of value.

WillRockwell said:

I have a feeling the US and Pakis are cooperating to squeeze the Taliban in a pincers on either side of the mountain border. At least this administration has a strategy and is not just throwing troops into killzones for political gain.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting Obama is providing the strategy to the Generals? :lol:

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

They are "giving thier lives" so people like you can bloviate about utter nonsense to try and pass off your couch sitting pseudo-intellectualism as something of value.

Click to expand...

This is somewhat exaggerated. The Afghanistan campaign wasn't initiated because homeland civil liberties were directly mortally threatened; ascribing that element to every single military campaign is mere political propaganda and dilutes the effects of those actually intended to defend civil liberties.

Agnapostate said:

This is somewhat exaggerated. The Afghanistan campaign wasn't initiated because homeland civil liberties were directly mortally threatened; ascribing that element to every single military campaign is mere political propaganda and dilutes the effects of those actually intended to defend civil liberties.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Al Qaeda attacked my country, my family, my friends.

Taliban aided and abetted them by giving sanctuary.

They directly attacked our freedom:

The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International



Bloviating about some "War for poppy" is idiocy at its finest. To ascribe afghanistan anything other than another battle in this animating contest of Freedom, is rather ignorant or chosen obtuseness.

The idea in Afghanistan should be the same as it was in Iraq. You need to create a situation where the culture itself realizes the benefit of turning against the extremists. If we just bombed a bunch of AL-Qaeda quacks, and went home, then eventually we face the same thing in the future since either Al-Qaeda would reform and again gain shelter within the borders, or another group would come about. Just satiating our desire for revenge is continuing along the same circular path of getting nowhere, in regards to terrorism.

However the logistics of Afghanistan is quite different than Iraq. They lack the infrastructure and education levels that Iraqis had. Because of this, we see competing warlords in various regions that are "unreachable" by their government, be it the Taliban or the current regime. In order to unify a culture against extremists, the infrastructure has to improve vastly.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Nonsense.

Al Qaeda attacked my country, my family, my friends.

Taliban aided and abetted them by giving sanctuary.

They directly attacked our freedom:

The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Click to expand...

No, they didn't, and as I said, that's mere political propaganda. Widespread civil liberties were never threatened with destruction by a single attack that they perceived as retaliatory, immoral as that might have been. Moreover, the point that stronger elements of the Taliban opposed that action illustrates the reality that removing them from governmental status altogether had little effect on the defense of civil liberties here, though a case could certainly be made that it was justifiable on the basis of defense of civil liberties in Afghanistan.

Agnapostate said:

No, they didn't, and as I said, that's mere political propaganda. Widespread civil liberties were never threatened with destruction by a single attack that they perceived as retaliatory, immoral as that might have been. Moreover, the point that stronger elements of the Taliban opposed that action illustrates the reality that removing them from governmental status altogether had little effect on the defense of civil liberties here, though a case could certainly be made that it was justifiable on the basis of defense of civil liberties in Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

Saying "nuh uh" is hardly debate. I provided you with an outline, and a link for your review.


Furthermore I refer you to bin laden's letter to America, in which he states that in order for them to stop attacking us, Bill Clinton needs to keep it in his pants, and we must come to islam.


Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' | World news | Observer.co.uk



There is no doubt the al qaeda attacks, and the taliban's sheltering of them were direct attacks on our nation and our freedom. There is no debate here.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Are you suggesting Obama is providing the strategy to the Generals? :lol:

Click to expand...

I am speculating without evidence on any of this, but if it is a strategy, Obama would have approved it. Why the lol?

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Saying "nuh uh" is hardly debate.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Unfortunately, that's exactly what you've done even after I made it apparent that not only were widespread civil liberties not substantially threatened by a single attack, but the Taliban opposed these interventionist tactics, and their forcible removal from government thus had little effect on the protection of civil liberties here.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Furthermore I refer you to bin laden's letter to America, in which he states that in order for them to stop attacking us, Bill Clinton needs to keep it in his pants, and we must come to islam.

Click to expand...

As made apparent in his 1996 fatwa (and confirmed in that letter, for that matter), his two chief complaints were U.S. financial support for the Israeli government, whom he considered to be committing many moral injustices violating the "sacred" nature of the Al-Aqsa mosque, as well as direct U.S. military presence throughout the Middle East, most notably in Saudi Arabia. He doesn't seem to have much of an interest in merely assaulting "freedom" or "liberty" (you'll notice that he didn't attack the more libertarian democracies of Scandinavia, for example), and it's of course the case that populations that serve as Al-Qaeda recruiting grounds object far more to U.S. policy in the region than to domestic "principles."

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

There is no doubt the al qaeda attacks, and the taliban's sheltering of them were direct attacks on our nation and our freedom. There is no debate here.

Click to expand...

There are few things of such a stereotypically propagandist nature as referring to "our nation and our freedom." But crude nationalist rhetoric conceals the obvious aforementioned reality that a single attack (which they conceptualized as retaliation rather than proactive aggression, regardless of the legitimacy of that belief) does not pose a widespread threat to civil liberties in the U.S., nor does their chief interest seem to be the elimination of widespread civil liberties in the U.S.

WillRockwell said:

I am speculating without evidence on any of this, but if it is a strategy, Obama would have approved it. Why the lol?

Click to expand...

Becaus your post was so full of fawning of the current president and scorn for the former, I just found your swooning rather humorous.

Agnapostate said:

Exactly. Unfortunately, that's exactly what you've done even after I made it apparent that not only were widespread civil liberties not substantially threatened by a single attack, but the Taliban opposed these interventionist tactics, and their forcible removal from government thus had little effect on the protection of civil liberties here.

Click to expand...

And then resorting to "I know you are but what am I" is rather peurile in nature.... :lol:


"interventionist tactics", what a joke.

As made apparent in his 1996 fatwa (and confirmed in that letter, for that matter), his two chief complaints were U.S. financial support for the Israeli government, whom he considered to be committing many moral injustices violating the "sacred" nature of the Al-Aqsa mosque, as well as direct U.S. military presence throughout the Middle East, most notably in Saudi Arabia. He doesn't seem to have much of an interest in merely assaulting "freedom" or "liberty" (you'll notice that he didn't attack the more libertarian democracies of Scandinavia, for example), and it's of course the case that populations that serve as Al-Qaeda recruiting grounds object far more to U.S. policy in the region than to domestic "principles."

Click to expand...

Please read what we must do to stop his attacks. We must come to islam for one.


Lets not cherrpick in order to maintain a version of bloviating that you have become renowned for! :lol:

There are few things of such a stereotypically propagandist nature as referring to "our nation and our freedom." But crude nationalist rhetoric conceals the obvious aforementioned reality that a single attack (which they conceptualized as retaliation rather than proactive aggression, regardless of the legitimacy of that belief) does not pose a widespread threat to civil liberties in the U.S., nor does their chief interest seem to be the elimination of widespread civil liberties in the U.S.

Click to expand...

More pseudo intellectualism. You need to get out more. The WTC attacks were a direct attack on our nation and its freedom. I have proved this, your propaganist ways can't stand reality.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

And then resorting to "I know you are but what am I" is rather peurile in nature.... :lol:

Click to expand...

If my comment was merely a reversal of yours, than perhaps you should acknowledge the puerility present in your own posts. :shrug:

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

"interventionist tactics", what a joke.

Click to expand...

:2wave:

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Please read what we must do to stop his attacks. We must come to islam for one.

Lets not cherrpick in order to maintain a version of bloviating that you have become renowned for! :lol:

Click to expand...

No, I didn't see that section as a mandate that he had issued, nor was Western Christianity or secularism listed as a reason for the initiation of AQ aggression. Even if it was, I suspect that he'd find far fewer individuals willing to aid him in the task of forcible conversion of the inhabitants of Western countries to Islam, both because of the lack of feasibility of that approach and because of the aforementioned fact that polling indicates a higher degree of opposition to U.S. policy than U.S. principles of religious pluralism or governmental secularism. As noted, he didn't attack Sweden.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

More pseudo intellectualism. You need to get out more. The WTC attacks were a direct attack on our nation and its freedom. I have proved this, your propaganist ways can't stand reality.

Click to expand...

No, you haven't "proved" anything. There are three factors that you've apparently chosen to desperately ignore at all costs:

1. The plane hijackings and crashings were acts of mass murder, but alone, they did not pose a threat to widespread U.S. civil rights or liberties as a whole. It's thus disingenuous to pretend that the mere right to speak and express sentiments freely was threatened by those actions.

2. There is little evidence that OBL or Al Qaeda were strongly opposed to civil rights or liberties in the U.S. alone, or that their interest in attacking U.S. targets was based on ardent opposition to such rights and liberties. Rather, the apparent reality is that they were opposed to U.S. government Middle Eastern policy, most significantly financial aid to the Israeli government and direct military presence and interventionism in other parts of the Middle East. Even if this were not the case, the populations that serve as their primary bases of recruitment indicate opposition to U.S. government foreign policy rather than domestic "principles."

3. Even if the first two points were untrue (and there's no compelling reason to believe they are), senior elements of the Taliban opposed the interventionism of Al Qaeda, and Mullah Omar was known to be a foe of the strategy of attacking the U.S. The forcible removal from governmental office and continued conflict with the Taliban thus cannot be conceptualized as a necessary defense of civil rights and liberties in the U.S. (especially in light of the fact that AQ themselves poses no substantial threat to those), though it is arguably justifiable on the grounds of the domestic repression of the Taliban.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Becaus your post was so full of fawning of the current president and scorn for the former, I just found your swooning rather humorous.

Click to expand...

Despite your curious affection for Victorian romance novels, I exhibited neither "fawning" nor "swooning". Are you incapable of rational discussion or do you believe that insult constitutes debate?

Agnapostate said:

If my comment was merely a reversal of yours, than perhaps you should acknowledge the puerility present in your own posts. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Right, your pseudo-intellectualism is in full bloom.

No, I didn't see that section as a mandate that he had issued, nor was Western Christianity or secularism listed as a reason for the initiation of AQ aggression. Even if it was, I suspect that he'd find far fewer individuals willing to aid him in the task of forcible conversion of the inhabitants of Western countries to Islam, both because of the lack of feasibility of that approach and because of the aforementioned fact that polling indicates a higher degree of opposition to U.S. policy than U.S. principles of religious pluralism or governmental secularism. As noted, he didn't attack Sweden.

Click to expand...

If you are choosing to remain ignorant of the contents of the letter I linked, there is no point in your pseudo-intellectual circle jerk.

No, you haven't "proved" anything. There are three factors that you've apparently chosen to desperately ignore at all costs:

1. The plane hijackings and crashings were acts of mass murder, but alone, they did not pose a threat to widespread U.S. civil rights or liberties as a whole. It's thus disingenuous to pretend that the mere right to speak and express sentiments freely was threatened by those actions.

Click to expand...

How many should die before we view it as a threat? Perhaps they should start with your family first this time around.

2. There is little evidence that OBL or Al Qaeda were strongly opposed to civil rights or liberties in the U.S. alone, or that their interest in attacking U.S. targets was based on ardent opposition to such rights and liberties. Rather, the apparent reality is that they were opposed to U.S. government Middle Eastern policy, most significantly financial aid to the Israeli government and direct military presence and interventionism in other parts of the Middle East. Even if this were not the case, the populations that serve as their primary bases of recruitment indicate opposition to U.S. government foreign policy rather than domestic "principles."

Click to expand...

Again, I am not interested in a pseudo-intelletual circle jerk, if you refuse to acknowledge the contents of the letter and the links I provided, there is no point.

3. Even if the first two points were untrue (and there's no compelling reason to believe they are), senior elements of the Taliban opposed the interventionism of Al Qaeda, and Mullah Omar was known to be a foe of the strategy of attacking the U.S. The forcible removal from governmental office and continued conflict with the Taliban thus cannot be conceptualized as a necessary defense of civil rights and liberties in the U.S. (especially in light of the fact that AQ themselves poses no substantial threat to those), though it is arguably justifiable on the grounds of the domestic repression of the Taliban.

Click to expand...

yet he refused to hand him over. He chose poorly.

WillRockwell said:

Despite your curious affection for Victorian romance novels, I exhibited neither "fawning" nor "swooning". Are you incapable of rational discussion or do you believe that insult constitutes debate?

Click to expand...

Oh my bad, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. :lol:

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Right, your pseudo-intellectualism is in full bloom.

Click to expand...

I do hope that the Victorian literature you consult isn't homoerotic.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

If you are choosing to remain ignorant of the contents of the letter I linked, there is no point in your pseudo-intellectual circle jerk.

Click to expand...

There is no "ignorance" of the contents of the letter. There's simply awareness that he wished to accelerate the attacks twice, both in response to what he considered "provocative" actions by Ariel Sharon, indicating his greater opposition to policy than domestic "principles." I wouldn't claim that he didn't oppose Western "decadence," but his opposition would not have been characterized by such a violent backlash had he not regarded the existence of financial and military support as an imposition of that decadence. As has been previously noted, he did not choose to attack the significantly more "decadent" Sweden or the Netherlands, for instance.

As mentioned, this reality is certainly confirmed by opinion polling on the matter. Zogby International's Impressions of America 2004: A Six-Nation Survey (go to page 90), summarizes this well.

When asked whether their overall attitude toward the US was shaped by their feelings about American values or US policies, in all six countries, an overwhelming percentage of respondents indicated that policy played a more important role.

Click to expand...

So it's certainly not a matter of mere opposition to "decadent" values, since foreign policy obviously occupies the far stronger role.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

How many should die before we view it as a threat? Perhaps they should start with your family first this time around.

Click to expand...

We could probably regard an Al Qaeda ability to conquer and exert control over any major U.S. states or even municipalities and regions within states as a threat to widespread civil rights and liberties within the U.S., but they possess no such ability.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Again, I am not interested in a pseudo-intelletual circle jerk, if you refuse to acknowledge the contents of the letter and the links I provided, there is no point.

Click to expand...

Your "analysis" is based on selective incorporation and overall ignorance about the motivations of OBL, Al Qaeda, and the populations that serve as ample recruiting bases for them. If his opposition was merely to secularism and "decadence," he would have focused his resources on Scandinavia or Western Europe. However, you wish to ignore their opposition to specific policies because it would undermine your interventionist sentiments. :shrug:

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

yet he refused to hand him over. He chose poorly.

Click to expand...

That does not validate the assessment that the current conflict with the Taliban in their role as military guerrillas is based on the protection or defense of strongly threatened U.S. civil rights and liberties.

The article doesn't say how many enemy kills were scored. If the Marines hold to the norm of a 20 to 1 kill ratio, then they probably smoked 30+ Tallies. I would say that's a good day.

Semper Fi and Happy hunting!